Re: last call on Raptor publication

Can I inquire just what the DF IPR statement actually is ?

The draft
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec- 
raptor-object-01.txt
says

8.  Intellectual Property

    Digital Fountain does have intellectual property rights associated
    with the technology described in this document, and intends to
    provide a full IPR statement specific to this document to the IETF
    that will satisfy the requirements of the IETF.

(BTW, this draft is apparently no longer on the RMT charter page  
under any version.)

Digging I find this
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=702
with

The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing  
any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s)  
disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation  
of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification  
("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such  
specification, is as follows(select one licensing declaration option  
only):
Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions.
-----

Is there an actual IPR statement ? I thought that there was, but I am  
perturbed not to be able to find one. I am talking to SMPTE people  
about this and have nothing really I can show them.

If there is not, then I would change my support to be in favor of  
option c, "experimental"

Regards
Marshall



On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:

> As you know, Digital Fountain changed the IPR statement for the FEC ID
> Raptor (draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object) withdrawing the "RAND"
> terms (please see the email that Mark Watson sent to this list,
> attached below).
>
> This thread is to settle once for all the position of the RMT WG on
> this issue, in particular regarding whether and how the WG wants to
> sponsor raptor for publication.
>
> We have the options of:
>
>   a) asking the IESG to publish raptor as a Standard-Track document
>      (as originally planned).
>   b) abandoning raptor as a WG standard
>   c) asking the IESG to publish raptor as experimental or
>      informational. Note that this might create problems with the
>      IANA allocation of FEC IDs etc.
>
> This issue was already discussed on this list and at the last IETF
> meeting (Dallas). So far we have had some comments in favor of option
> a) and no comments against it.
>
> Please express your opinion by June 19th. If we have no feedback
> by then, we will assume that the WG wishes to go for a), given the
> previous discussions.
>
> 	thank you,
> 	Lorenzo
>
> ################# Mark's email attached below #######################
>
> All,
>
>
>
> As most of you are aware, Digital Fountain has to date been promoting
> our core technology, DF Raptor, as an open standard in IETF RMT and
> elsewhere, for any and all applications.  This mail is to let you know
> about a change to that strategy: As a result of a recent, significant
> new relationship that is crucial to Digital Fountain with a prime
> contractor in the defense industry, our approach going forward will be
> to promote Raptor as an open standard for specific markets and
> applications  including of course 3GPP and DVB standards where Raptor
> has already been adopted and others in future.
>
>
>
> However, this means revising the IPR statement that we have made to
> the IETF regarding draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object because, whilst
> we still offer RAND terms for specific standards such as 3GPP and DVB,
> we are no longer able to offer RAND terms independent of market and
> application.
>
>
>
> Going forward, there are several options regarding
> draft-ietf-rmt-fec-raptor-object, including not publishing it at all.
> This is of course a decision for the IETF and Digital Fountain will
> not take a position in that discussion.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Watson
>
> Digital Fountain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt